Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/schedule/calendar_items' which implies it's a read operation, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, whether it requires specific permissions, what the response format looks like, or any rate limits. For a tool with 11 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise - just two short phrases. While this could be seen as under-specification, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every element (the action, the domain context, and the API endpoint) serves a purpose, though the overall description is minimal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what calendar items are, what the return format looks like, whether there's pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters but not explained), or any error conditions. For a tool with this many parameters and no structured metadata, the description should provide more contextual information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all 11 parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter info in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List Calendar Items' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It mentions '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]' which provides some domain context, but lacks specificity about what calendar items are or what resources are involved. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools in any meaningful way.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools that might serve similar purposes. The agent would have no context about when this specific listing tool is appropriate versus other listing tools in the sibling list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.